Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiith an asterisk.









Which led to this from FSU fans:

Wow, this is going to be a fun league. LOL

Ironic that the Seminoles are getting all hot and bothered over this.

In their 2013 baseball media guide FSU claimed they were going for their 7th straight Atlantic Division title. However, in 2010 Clemson swept FSU and was the #2 seed in the ACC Tournament.

http://www.seminoles.com/sports/m-basebl...13aaa.html

There really should be a rule whereby the only teams who can claim a divisional championship are those who play in the conference title game. Otherwise, it demeans it too much, IMHO.

The last two years 37.5% of the Big East won the league

(08-22-2013 07:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  There really should be a rule whereby the only teams who can claim a divisional championship are those who play in the conference title game. Otherwise, it demeans it too much, IMHO.

Agreed. Not worth having 4 "champions" in one year like the Big East did last season. Then again what more fitting way for the conference to go out?

(08-22-2013 07:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Ironic that the Seminoles are getting all hot and bothered over this.

In their 2013 baseball media guide FSU claimed they were going for their 7th straight Atlantic Division title. However, in 2010 Clemson swept FSU and was the #2 seed in the ACC Tournament.

http://www.seminoles.com/sports/m-basebl...13aaa.html

Hilarious that you say hot and bothered. Nearly all of us just find it funny.

Honestly, if you guys didn't have 268 blank division title slots on that thing it'd be much less ridiculous. Also, putting the asterisk makes you look like tards.

if this board is any indication, the FSU/Clemson game should get a blast this year!

(08-22-2013 08:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The last two years 37.5% of the Big East won the league

I think it's misleading to say four teams tied for first place in the Big East last year. If you take the four teams and create a mini conference out of them here are their records against each other:

Louisville 2-1
Rutgers 2-1
Cincinnati 1-2
Syracuse 1-2

In this case it can be argued Louisville and Rutgers were the co champs while Cincinnati and Syracuse tied for third place.

That's the point though. They all claimed the title. same as the year before. Tie breakers are for seeding and bowls: don't affect who gets to claim the title. same as this situation.

Besides, Clemson isn't "claiming" anything. Representatives from the ACC presented us with an Atlantic Division trophy in the locker room following the NC State game last season.

I'm not blaming Clemson or anyone else for how things have played out. The rules are what they are right now and it's good for everyone's job security, fund-raising efforts, media visibility, etc., to have as many teams as possible look like they are successful. I get that. I just think it's hogwash, that's all. I also think it serves to cheapen the feat.

As far as I'm concerned, in any given year, there can only one divisional champion of the Atlantic Division and but one divisional champion of the Coastal Division. That's it, that's the list. It is not remotely complicated or controversial. The teams that can rightfully lay claim that achievement are the two teams who play in the ACC's Conference Championship Game. Then whomever wins that game, is the ONLY team that can call itself ACC Champion for that year.

I have no idea why anyone would take issue with that position? It's common sense, really.

Since, UNC and Miami were ineligible and GT represented in the Championship game. Do all 3 of them get a divisional championship trophy?

(08-23-2013 11:00 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 08:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The last two years 37.5% of the Big East won the league

I think it's misleading to say four teams tied for first place in the Big East last year. If you take the four teams and create a mini conference out of them here are their records against each other:

Louisville 2-1
Rutgers 2-1
Cincinnati 1-2
Syracuse 1-2

In this case it can be argued Louisville and Rutgers were the co champs while Cincinnati and Syracuse tied for third place.

And if you only count teams who were able to beat Missou last year, Syracuse would have won the conference outright. You can cherry pick data to say almost anything. The BIG EAST had a set way of determining who won it, and applying that formula, there were 4 champions. Since UL was the highest rated of the four, the Cards represented the conference in the BCS game. There is no other way of slicing it without misrepresenting what happened.

(08-23-2013 04:46 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I'm not blaming Clemson or anyone else for how things have played out. The rules are what they are right now and it's good for everyone's job security, fund-raising efforts, media visibility, etc., to have as many teams as possible look like they are successful. I get that. I just think it's hogwash, that's all. I also think it serves to cheapen the feat.

As far as I'm concerned, in any given year, there can only one divisional champion of the Atlantic Division and but one divisional champion of the Coastal Division. That's it, that's the list. It is not remotely complicated or controversial. The teams that can rightfully lay claim that achievement are the two teams who play in the ACC's Conference Championship Game. Then whomever wins that game, is the ONLY team that can call itself ACC Champion for that year.

I have no idea why anyone would take issue with that position? It's common sense, really.

+1